Re: [PERFORM] MySQL+InnoDB vs. PostgreSQL test?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PERFORM] MySQL+InnoDB vs. PostgreSQL test? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 19418.1075827791@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PERFORM] MySQL+InnoDB vs. PostgreSQL test? (Jeff <threshar@torgo.978.org>) |
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
Jeff <threshar@torgo.978.org> writes: > On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 11:46:05 -0500 > Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I did some idle, very unscientific tests the other day that indicated >> that MySQL insert performance starts to suck with just 2 concurrent >> inserters. Given a file containing 10000 INSERT commands, a single >> mysql client ran the file in about a second. So if I feed the file >> simultaneously to two mysqls in two shell windows, it should take >> about two seconds total to do the 20000 inserts, right? The observed >> times were 13 to 15 seconds. (I believe this is with a MyISAM table, >> since I just said CREATE TABLE without any options.) > MyISAM is well known to suck if you update/insert/delete because it > simply aquires a full table lock when you perform those operations! Sure, I wasn't expecting it to actually overlap any operations. (If you try the same test with Postgres, the scaling factor is a little better than linear because we do get some overlap.) But that shouldn't result in a factor-of-seven slowdown. There's something badly wrong with their low-level locking algorithms I think. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: